Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

We should not re-concile on rollback #197

Closed
qinqon opened this issue Oct 1, 2019 · 1 comment
Closed

We should not re-concile on rollback #197

qinqon opened this issue Oct 1, 2019 · 1 comment
Labels
kind/bug priority/medium

Comments

@qinqon
Copy link
Member

qinqon commented Oct 1, 2019

When we implement rollback it wil be treated as a normal error and re-concile will be done, so nmstate will apply config and then rollback again in case of non transitory error, so currentState is going to cycle from pre-rollback to post-rollback state.
@qinqon
Copy link
Member Author

qinqon commented Oct 14, 2019

Closed by #214

@qinqon qinqon closed this as completed Oct 14, 2019
cybertron pushed a commit to cybertron/kubernetes-nmstate that referenced this issue Jul 30, 2021
@openshift-ci
Merge pull request nmstate#197 from openshift-bot/art-consistency-ope…
840a444 
…nshift-4.9-openshift-kubernetes-nmstate-handler

Updating openshift-kubernetes-nmstate-handler images to be consistent with ART
@kubevirt-bot kubevirt-bot mentioned this issue Aug 27, 2021
Closed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
kind/bug priority/medium
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
1 participant
@qinqon